Republicans Can’t Gloat, But They Can Listen To the Voters & Set an Example

    Two years ago I listened to Democrats tell me “Republicans have gone the way of the Whigs”, “this is the end of the Republican Party”, “the Republican Party is forever lost”, “they will never comeback”. These are direct quotes. They are the thoughts of euphoric liberals who saw, then President-Elect Barack Obama, as a messianic figure, a modern JFK and the “hope” of our nation. At the time, I could not help but think, first, these are the same people who think Joe Biden is a genius, and second, how naïve could these people be?

I for one understand the cyclical nature of politics and I also understood the nature of the Democrats slow rise to control between 2004 and 2008. So, confident in the principles that lie at the heart of the G.O.P., I knew the Republican Party was not dead. I knew that we would come back and I never abandoned the cause to bring ’em back.  I hoped for my Party to have learned a lesson and come to understand what they did wrong. I was also confident that, being dominated by liberals, the Democrat Party would prove incompetent. I stated such. I also stated that President Obama would be a reincarnation of the Carter presidency and prove to be a man controlled  by circumstances more than he controlled circumstances.

Between my two perceptions of the Parties, I knew the G.O.P. would be back. However, I never expected them to comeback quicker than any other time in American political history. Sadly, I cannot say that this record comeback was to my Party’s credit. It was solely due to the failure of Democrats. They performed in a way that demonstrated everything that people hate about politics. When it comes to partisanship, they defined it. When it came to pork, they stuffed their faces. On the issue of spending, one would have to work really hard to try to spend more than they have in just 20 short months. On negative issue, after negative issue, Democrats exaggerated the negatives. The closed door deals, the underhanded tactics, the passage of bills they did not read, the overreach of government, corruption, whatever people disliked about government and politics, Democrats did.

In the meantime, the G.O.P. had little chance to give the public reason to vote for them and offered little reason to do so either. What they did do though, was oppose all that Democrats did and all that the public disliked. For that reason, they were the beneficiaries of a protest vote against Democrats, not necessarily a vote for Republicans.

That is why I have penned the midterms of 2010 the Republican Rejuvenation. In 1994, the wave that swept Republicans into power was accurately called the Republican Revolution. And it was a revolution. People had approved of the ideas and direction that the G.O.P. was offering. But this time, the people are not that confident. So while this election has indeed rejuvenated the G.O.P., the rise back to power they have experienced is an opportunity, not a victory. It is a chance that is theirs to blow, or take advantage of.

It ‘s a chance to show leadership and prove that they understand that the leadership they must provide is that which leads us to a limited government that stays out of our lives, spends less of our money and more accurately reflects that which it was intended to when it was founded.

So now that the chance to prove ourselves is upon us, how do we as Republicans take advantage of the opportunity?

First; we must not act like Democrats. We must not be hypocrites and implement the same legislative tactics and sleights of hands that we denounced Democrats for using to pass legislation. Second; we must not approve increased spending which increases the overall federal budget and need to reduce spending and the deficit. Third; we must follow through on our promises and cut the size of government and repeal Obamacare and replace it, not with a more government, but rather a package of changes which help make healthcare more affordable through the free market, not through a behemoth new federal bureaucracy.

But this is not enough. Republicans must go the extra mile and prove that they have not only learned the ideological lessons which teach us that we can not compromise on big spending and big government, but that we also want less government when it comes to the personal lives of individual Americans. We must show that when we discuss less regulation, we also mean less regulation of the people and their personal lives. And beyond proving that we have learned our ideological lessons we must appeal to the nonpartisan nature of the average American and prove that we have learned how to provide leadership that is for country , not Party.

It is this cause which I feel the G.O.P. must act upon first.

When President Obama was elected, he proved himself to be quite partisan. It took him 18 months to meet one on one with Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. It took him a year to start discussing healthcare reform with Republicans. He has recently stated that Republicans can join with Democrats but have sit in the back and described the loyal opposition as “our enemy“.. These are not the acts and words of a leader who wants to cross the aisle and deal with all Americans or hear all opinions. The American people are tired of partisan leadership and partisan gridlock. That is why with this new opportunity at hand, Republicans must show that they understand when partisanship and politics must stop and productivity and progress must start.

To do so, I call upon the new Republican majority to reach out to the Democrat minority and our President. Reach out to them, one on one and say. “let’s start the new Congress right. Let’s start it off on a productive note and let’s answer this question. What do we agree upon?”

I want the Republican leadership to find out what Democrats and Republicans can do together in the first 100 days and start off on the right foot. Let us change the tone in Washington that the American working class hates about the political class.

While there are priorities which the G.O.P. will have a responsibility to address with haste, certain national priorities and commitments they campaigned on, at the same time, there must be some significant issues which the left and the right can agree on. Let us find out what they are and act upon them, now, not later.

This new day in politics must produce a new way in politics. A way that unites more than divides and lifts us up as nation more than weighs us down. In this new day, Republicans have a chance to say “no” to what needs to be rejected, but the responsibility to produce that which should be said “yes” to. The opportunity we have been handed must be used to demonstrate that we are deserving of the peoples vote and that when applied to government properly, the core Republicans principles we stand for, are key to the formulation of the best policies for the American people. This opportunity we have is nothing to gloat about. We have no right to gloat. We did not earn this victory in 2010, we simply were the beneficiary of the Democrat’s losses. But if we do what is right, now, we can truly be deserving of votes later.

What To Look For In The Early Election Returns

    For those of you who find yourselves viewing election returns with the same type of intensity that most watch the Super Bowl with, POLITICS 24/7  previously offered a comprehensive election night analysis and schedule along with projections. It seems to have been quite popular and so  for those who are most anxious, POLITICS 24/7 now focuses in on the earliest returns and what they are likely to tell us about how the rest of the night will shape up.

The very first returns that have the chance of being reported on will come out of Indiana and Kentucky. Here, parts of the state close their polls at 6:00 pm EST. As a result, it is possible for some media outlets to report the results of some of the first House races. But it is also possible, in fact likely, that the results in a few of those congressional districts where the polls do close, will be too close to call.

6:00 pm

But sometime between 6:00 and 7:00 pm look at Indiana-2 and 9, and Kentucky-3 and 6.

In Indiana’s 9th CD, a loss by incumbent Democrat Baron Hill will be a sign that Republicans are indeed on track to take the House and see significant gains across the board.

If the races in Indiana‘s 2^nd district and Kentucky’s 3^rd, are too close to call, rest assured that that this will indeed be a wave election. But if Democrat incumbents Joe Donnelly and John Yarmuth actually lose, to their Republican opponents, Jackie Walorski and Todd Lally, you can take it as a sign that the 2010 midterms are going to be a tsunami that will produce historic gains for the Republicans that approach 70 seats.

 

 

7:00 pm

After 7:00 pm EST, the races that will act as barometers and need to be watched include:

 Kentucky’s Senate race, South Carolina-5, Florida-8 & 22, Georgia-8 & 12, Virginia-5 & 11.

The GOP will be on track for 50 or more seats with Republicans wins in the Kentucky Senate race with Rand Paul, in addition to the following House races;

South Carolina-5 (Mick Mulvaney-R over John Spratt-D), Florida-8 (Daniel Webster-R over Allen Grayson-D), Florida-22 (Allen West-R over Ron Klein-D), Georgia-8 (Austin Scott-R over Jim Marshall-D) and, Virginia-5 (Robert Hurt over Tom Perriello-D)

While those wins will help verify that the G.O.P. is on track, the following results between 7 and 8 O’clock will be signs that Democrats are about to be crushed worse than expected;

Georgia-12 (Ray McKinney-R over John Barrow-D) and Virginia-11 (David McKinley-R over Mike Oliviero-D)

7:30 pm

Between 7:30 and 8:00 pm, the results to look at will come out West Virginia, Ohio, and North Carolina.

Wins by John Kasich in Ohio’s gubernatorial race and Ohio’s 1^st CD (Steve Chabot-R over Steve Driehaus-D) will show that the G.O.P. is on track and that trends are holding. But the races that will indicate that the Republican wave may bigger than anyone anticipates will come from West Virginia’s race for U.S. Senate and the following House races;

 WV-1, WV-3, NC-11 and OH-6

Any combination of two or more wins in these races will point to Republican gains in the House that will exceed 62 seats and if John Raese pulls it out and beats back popular Democrats Governor Joe Mancin for Senate in West Virginia, the G.O.P. will have the potential of taking control of the United States Senate.

8:00 pm

After the 8 o’clock hour, the outcome of the 2010 midterm will begin to be set in stone.

News out of Illinois of Republican pickups in the Senate by Kirk and the statehouse by Brady, will keep everything track in still make it possible for Republicans to take control of the United States Senate. From Pennsylvania, word of Pat Toomey defeating Joe SaysTax will be further evidence of the trend holding. Of course something else to watch for in these wins, will be the margins of victory. If any of these races produce leads of 5 or more percent, that will help prove that polling models are inaccurate and were unable to detect the undercurrent of voter sentiments. A sure sign that things will be worse off for Democrats than anyone anticipate, would be a Republican win over Democrat Patrick Duval in the race for Governor of Massachusetts.

The House races to look at here will be:

Connecticut-5, Pennsylvania-3 and11, NH 1, Illinois-14, and Mississippi-4

A majority of Republicans here are keeping the G.O.P on track for a big night. But if it is going to be a really big night for Republicans they will be winning the following races:

Pennsylvania-8 (Michael Fitzpatrick-R over Patrick Murphy-D), New Jersey-3, (Jon Runyan-R over John Adler-D)

Democrat losses of these two seats will be a sign that the anti-Democrat sentiments are seeping into some of the bluest states in one of the bluest regions of the country. Other such races include:

 Massachusetts-10, Illinois-17 and, Missouri-4

 And two seats that Democrats losses would mean that they are going to be dead in the water  would be:

New Jersey 6 and 12

Here Democrats Frank Pallone and Rush Holt are seemingly safe seats, but there are rumblings that could prove them not to be safe for big government, big spending liberals anymore.  That and extremely hard fought races by their Republican opponents Anna Little and Scott Sipprele makes these races worth watching.  Pallone and Holt may not lose but if they have a margin of victory that is less than 6 or 7 percent, Democrats will be living in fear from now to 2012.

 But aside from these races, keep your eyes out for the returns in

Massachusetts’ 4^th CD and Michigan’ 15^th

If long serving John Dingel goes down in Michigan, Democrats better hold on for a tougher ride than they expected, but if Barney Frank loses to Republican Sean Bielat in MA-4, Republicans may be on their way to taking 70 seats.

Defeating Barney Frank may be unlikely, but after Republican Scott Brown was elected to replace Ted Kennedy in the Senate and a strong race by Sean Bielat, if there are going to be any miracles on election night, they will take place here in the Bay State.

9:00 pm

As the 9 o’clock hour rolls out look for the House to be officially declared to have changed hands and gone to Republican control. But during this hour, some of the House races that will give a hint as to the size of their majority, are;

Louisiana-2, Minnesota-1 & 8, Michigan-15, NY-2, 13, 19, 24, Rhode Island and Wisconsin 13

While many other seats are going to fall to Republicans after 9 o’clock, especially in New York, Colorado and Wisconsin and Michigan, of the seats mentioned above, if Democrats who are likely to win in these districts, lose any combination of 4 or more, Republicans are looking at House gains approaching 70 seats

10:00 pm

Long before this hour, we should have established that the House has gone to Republicans but we should also have a good idea on how the rest of the chips will fall. I anticipate that after this hour, the balance of power in the Senate will come down to California and Washington where Boxer and Murphy are at risk (Murphy more so than Boxer), and Alaska where write-n ballots will drag out the time it takes to declare Joe Miller the winner.

Sharon Angle is likely to win in Nevada but as for this race, look for the early numbers that come out of Clark County.

Clark County is the home of Las Vegas and most of the state’s population. Clark County is overwhelmingly Democrat, but it is the only part of the state that is. If returns out of Clark County are showing Harry Reid with a lead over Angle that is not higher than 8%, Harry Reid will have lost his bid for reelection.

Other races of special interest throughout the night will be Louisiana-2 where incumbent Joseph Cao is likely to lose to Democrat Cedric Richmond.  If Cao wins, this will be a sign that Democrats are underperforming among their base and minorities musch worse than anyone thought possible.  The same will be able to be said if Democrat Incumbent Loretta Sanchez loses to Republican Van Tran in California’s 47th congressional district. 

Also of interest will be Hawaii’s at-large seat in Congress and race for Governor.  Republicans have a decent but unlikely chance of keeping Charles Djou in office but an even less likely chance of keeping its statehouse in Republican hands aginst popular retiring Congressman Neil Abercrombie.

Midterm Election Has Massachusetts Doing The Barney Shuffle

Barney Frank is Not Happy

With the purchase of a cheap suit and tie from J.C. Penny’s,  a green painted mask, and a twitter message calling for a local dancer who “can do contemporary moves and 1970s disco moves,” the campaign of Massachusetts congressional  candidate Sean Bielat took an obnoxious, irresponsible career politician and turned him into a video sensation that is sure to try drive a point home to voters. 

In what is undoubtedly one of the most amusing, yet truthful ads of the 2010 midterm election, Republican Sean Bielat and his team have taken the words of  Barney “Big Fannie & Freddie Mac”  Frank, and put them to music in a diddy called” The Barney Funk”   Then after a few applicants demonstrated their moves, the Bielat team, picked one agile dancer to don a suit, tie, and green painted mask as they danced to a lyrical versions of some of Rep. Frank’s most memorable to phrases. 

The result was the “Barney Shuffle” and driving home of the message that despite more than thirty years in offfice and his role in the congressional regulating scandal that was responsible for the housing market collapse which ushered in a worldwide economic crisis, Barney Frank simply dances around the issues, never addressing the real problems or his hand in adding to those problems.

According to the Bielat campaign:

” Nobody dances around the issues quite like Barney Frank.

Frank has tap danced around his support for bank bailouts, a failed stimulus, and job-killing tax increases. He has strutted back and forth on the issue of homeownership, despite a clear record of promoting it for unqualified buyers which lead to the housing collapse.  

 

Frank has twisted the facts about giving his friend’s bank a $200 million taxpayer-funded bailout, and waltzed away from his vote to nationalize healthcare.  Most recently, he attempted to side-step a controversy surrounding a luxurious Virgin Islands vacation with a billionaire hedge fund manager.

 

It’s time to end the Washington Hustle. On November 2, the show’s over.”

 

 A  picture may certainly be worth a thousand words but this video is priceless and certainly worth your time.  So sit back, relax and allow and as Election Day approaches, allow the visions of Barney to dance in your head  just like children children with visions of sugar plums dancing in their heads as the holidays approach.

 

 

  

Sean Bielat vs. Barney Frank: A Race Between Right & Wrong

    Brewing in Massachusetts is a battle of symbolically epic proportions. In one corner sit’s the energetic Sean Bielart. In the other corner sit’s the slovenly Barney Frank. Perhaps here in the 4^th Congressional District of Massachusetts, lies a election contest that epitomizes the differences between Democrats and Republicans more so than any other single race in America.

Bielat and Frank are diametrically opposed on just about every major issue that confronts America today. But in many ways, the Bielat-Frank battle is more than just a race between the left and the right. It is a race between right and wrong.

On the right side is a candidate who believes in a limited government that practices fiscal responsibility, sustainable job growth, states rights, reasonable debate and rational discussion. On the wrong side sit’s a candidate that practices, endorses and promotes endless and reckless spending, the growth of unsustainable government jobs, federal intrusion and obnoxious discourse that includes personal arrogance and sarcastic name calling.

Click Here to Visit Sean Bielat’s Website

In the right is Major Sean Bielat, a first time candidate, private businessman and Marine who believes in focusing on economic growth and fiscal responsibility, peace through strength and in a return to Constitutional values and citizen-legislators.

In the wrong is 15 term, entrenched Congressman Barney Frank, a career politician who went from the state legislature to the House of Representatives where he has spent nearly three decades recklessly spending our nation into oblivion, ignoring the dangers of his own legislation and legislative leadership, cutting backroom deals, belittling his constituents and colleagues with name calling, and trying to avoid the public scrutiny of the political scandals that he has been at the center of.

Now it can admittedly be argued whether or not government spending is right or wrong, or whether any position on any specific issue is right or wrong or liberal or conservative. But the assertion that Maj. Bielat is right and Congressman Frank is wrong, is based on much more than ideology. It is based on character, the Constitution and even experience.

While Rep. Frank has experience in only elected office, Maj. Bielat has experience in public service through the military and as Chairman of the NATO Industrial Armaments Group, a team that he led in studying the potential for use of advanced reconnaissance technology in urban warfare. Bielat has experience as a management consultant and as a program manager for iRobot Corporation where he led a $100 million, 100 person business that provides life-saving defense robots used to destroy roadside bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan. Maj. Bielat also has experience as a businessman and independent consultant who has helped clients and companies build market strategies that increase sales, production, and job growth.

While Barney Frank has well over 35 years of experience in government, Sean Bielat has decades of experience in the real world, the world that is effected by actions government takes and the decisions that aloof, Washington insiders and political powerbrokers like Frank make.

But right and wrong in Massachusetts’ 4^th C.D. election is not solely based on experience, even though for many Bielat’s real life experience is much more refreshing than Frank’s experience as a Beltway liberal and Washington insider. Right and wrong here is also determined by the character of the men in question and the respect they show to the positions they hold and the people they serve.

In his service, Maj. Bielat has an unblemished record of serving the public in the Marines, honorably. And in the private sector, he has respectfully worked with and for the clients that he served.

Congressman Bawny Fwank

For his part, Congressman Frank has infamously responded to his constituents and colleagues with name calling and a  flippant air of arrogance which reflects his delusional sense of superiority over those who elect him and those who he serves with. And beyond his lack of respect for the people, is an even greater demonstration of arrogance and a mentality that exhibits Frank’s knack for believing that he is above the law and need not live by the laws he has a hand in establishing.

During his three decades as a Beltway insider, Frank has admitted to having paid Stephen L. Gobie, a male prostitute, for sex and subsequently hiring Gobie as his personal assistant, all while Gobie ran a prostitution ring out of Frank’s D.C. townhouse.

There were other legal troubles such as a brush with the House banking scandal in the early 90’s and the most recent ethical breach to have been discovered was one that involved his conflict of interest with his position as Chairman of the House Banking Committee and his long-term romantic relationship with Herb Moses, a Director with Fannie Mae. Fannie Mae happens to be under the jurisdiction of the banking committee and as Barney Frank’s boyfriend was pushing to have the federal government relax lending restrictions for unqualified recipients, Congressman Frank was rejecting calls to investigate the practices of Fannie Mae and to tighten lending restrictions.

Since then, it has become painfully obvious that the lack of action regarding just how far Fannie Mae could go in lending money to unqualified homebuyers, helped put Fannie Mae at the epicenter of the financial meltdown that has thrown the U.S. economy into disarray.

It doesn’t take a genius to see that by having as his boyfriend, a top exec at a firm that stands to gain from the laws that you are in the forefront of, is a conflict of interest. But few conflicts of interest result in the downfall of a world economy.

Barney Frank’s refusal to take appropriate action on the practices of Fannie Mae, something which Republicans warned of the need for in 2006, makes Frank one of the few people directly responsible for the banking crisis that tightened up the flow of money and resulted in one of the most sluggish economies in decades.

These are just some of the reasons why the race for Congress in Massachusetts 4^th C.D. has become a race between right wrong and more than one between left and right.

Sean Bielat is in every way, shape and form the antithesis of Barney Frank.

While Frank spends, Bielat wants to save. While Frank talks down to voters, Bielat talks with voters and while Bielat understands the need to abide by the law, Frank believes he is above the law. Understanding that only gives rise to one question ……..  how long can the people of Massachusetts tolerate Frank? Frank’s efforts do not simply effect the people of one district in Massachusetts. His work is effecting the entire nation. His efforts have helped to give birth to rising deficits, greater debt, less consumer confidence, more unemployment and a loss of trust in the collective decisions that Congress makes.

What will it take to finally reject the politics of patronage and pranks? What will it take for voters to say that after thirty years, Barney Frank is too entrenched in the politics of Party and personal privilege to represent the true needs of the people who he is so far removed from?

Now more than ever is the time to retire the professional politics of Barney Frank. It’s time for a citizen legislator to take his place and represent the needs of the people, not the needs of his self and of his Party.

If there was ever a time and place for someone like Barney Frank to be issued his pink slip, it is now and in Massachusetts.

Ten months ago, like the warnings of Paul Revere during his legendary ride, voters of Massachusetts sent Democrats a message. At the time it was just a signal, a signal sent up into the air when Massachusetts chose to have Republican Scott Brown succeed liberal lion Ted Kennedy in the United States Senate. Since then that Republican ripple has turned into a total Republican romp that is turning this years election map “Brown”.  But the romp won’t be complete if the very same people who started the Republican revival, reward Barney Frank with another term in office. The statement for change will not be fully made if Barney Frank is allowed to continue the politics of his past into the policy making process of our future.

To ask for lightning to strike the same place twice is a lofty goal but given the dramatically disrespectful, disgraceful and despicable product of thirty years of scandals and mistakes, not only is asking for lightning to strike the same place appropriate, it is worthy of us planting mile high lightning rods and flying from their peaks, kites with keys attached to their tethers.

Click Here To Sign Up With Sean

For that reason, it is incumbent on those who are fed up with the way things are going in America, to focus their attention on one of the members of Congress whom best represents all that we hate about politics. Aside from Nancy Pelosi, that person is Barney Frank, a man who symbolizes all that is wrong with federal government and all that we want to change in American politics.

That is why I am asking that you take the time to assist the effort to defeat Frank. Take the time to donate whatever you can spare to the campaign of Maj. Sean Bietlat.  Send him a note of encouragement and do your part in insuring that this November, change is truly served by ridding our halls of government of those whom pollute the political atmosphere, corrode the halls of government and throw America deeper into debt and the hands of socialism. Show your support for real change. Show your support for Maj. Bietlat and your dissatisfaction with Barney Frank.

As for those of you who believe that it will be impossible to unseat Frank, under normal circumstances I would agree. The voter registration for the four counties contained in the 4th C.D. (as of October 2008), had the numbers at  at a total enrollment of , 2,072,793 with  751,174 registered Democrats, 206,326 registered Republicans, and 860,140 Unenrolled. With figures like that, it is easy to see why Frank usually has an easy reelection. It helps explain how in 2008, when President Obama had long coattails, Frank won with 68% of the total vote.

But 2010 presents us with a situation that is far from normal. Nothing is “usual” this year. This year Republicans are likely to win more seats in the House than they have had since 1946. I believe that the G.O.P will pick up as many as at least 62 seats in the House and are likely to pick up 10 seats in the senate. This would mark one of the quickest comebacks of a Party in our history. Less than two years ago, Democrats were discussing the death of the G.O.P.. Liberals were suggesting that Republicans were going the way of the Whigs. And at the time, it may in fact have seemed like that. But since then, Democrats have taken the optimism of the American people and turned it into hatred. Hatred for the system, the process and the establishment running the system. That is why we have seen the birth of the TEA Party, and record numbers of incumbents lose their bids for renomination. It was also the reason that blue Massachusetts went Brown for Scott Brown when it came to replacing Ted Kennedy in the Senate.

And in that election, just ten months ago, despite the overwhelming plurality of Democrats in Frank’s congressional district, Scott Brown beat his Democrat opponent Martha Coakley by more than 1,700 votes.

Combine that with a national trend for change that involves anti-establishment, anti-incumbent and anti-Democrat sentiments and the fact that Sean Bielat, a virtual unkown, has shrunk Frank’s lead in the polls to 10%, a difference that is closer than Frank has seen in most any of his races, and what you have is the possibility of pulling off what at one time seemed impossible.

That is why now more than ever, hope for ridding ourselves of Barney Frank must be kept alive and the enthusiasm to defeat him must be kicked into high gear.   But even if the effort behind Bielat falls short this time around, remember this.  Defeating Barney Frank could require a two step process, a process that requires us in 2010 to make it known that defeating Frank is not impossible and in 2012, when even more voters turnout to vote, actually doing it and replacing Frank with Bielat.

But whether we get rid of Barney Frank now or later, it’s up to you to begin the process.  Donate to Maj. Bielat’s campaign for commonsense and a constitutional citizen legislature.  As Bielat notes;

 “Barney Frank can raise huge amounts of money, much of it from special interests looking for his help. Competing with Barney will be a David and Goliath struggle, but we can do it with your help”.  

Just think of how much more refreshing and functional government would be without Barney Frank looking down on you and think of just how much you will regret not having helped retire him after seeing how close Maj. Bielat comesthe dream of sending Frank home can come true.   With your help, that dream can become reality. Without your help, it will remain a goal out of our reach.

Town Hall Meeting Shows That Americans Do Not Believe That Obama Is Sincere

    Today I listened to Senator John McCain’s town hall meeting on healthcare reform in Sun City, Arizona. He brought up many valid points and pretty much adhered to the widely held Republican ideas regarding what they believe should be the first steps for effective reforms. But aside from all the minutia and valid arguments presented at the event, one thing stood out to me.

As Senator McCain was wrapping up his remarks, he said, “I believe President Obama is being sincere on the issue“. He was about to continue by saying “but we don’t agree on the approach that we should take“, but the large crowd in attendance interrupted the Senator with jeers and boos before he could finish his statement.

The demonstrated disapproval from the audience was not directed at the Senator as much as it was a response to how sincere they believe the President is on the issue.

Senator McCain calmly encouraged the crowd not to think the President is insincere but it did not really change any minds in the audience. The incident shed light on an important part of President Obama’s problem not only on healthcare but in general. There is a significant segment of the population who do not trust the President. They do not necessarily believe in him or the much touted mantra of “change” that he asked us to believe in when he was running for election to the presidency.

Without actual accurate polling to refer to, I will not claim that the segment of society that feels this way is a clear majority of the population, but it is a significant enough number of Americans to make it hard for the President to ram through his entire legislative agenda in a mere eight months and there is nothing to make them think otherwise.

For example, as the nonpartisan C.B.O. (Congressional Budget Office) released a report indicating that the recession we are in is much deeper than opinions have estimated, they also pointed out that the President’s current spending spree will lead to a deficit of $9 trillion over 10 years. That is $2 trillion more than was forecasted earlier this year.

Other factors indicated that while there may be ever so slight recovery signals in the economy, an inordinate number of Americans will continue to be jobless for much longer than expected and well in to next year.

These nonpartisan assessments do not help make Americans believe in President Obama’s economic supervision or his proposed stimulus packages which White House talking point memo’s has urged Democrats to refer to not as a stimulus package but rather a recovery plan.

The move even led liberal loon Congressman Elmer Fudd , I mean Barney Frank, of Massachusetts to state “I’m not supposed to call it stimulus. The messaging experts in Washington have told us we’re supposed to call it the ‘recovery plan’ because that works out better with focus groups. I was puzzled by that because I have found that most people would rather be stimulated than recover.”

Smart remarks from asinine legislators aside, much of the American people are not confident in what President Obama is doing.

The best interpretation of the condition of the economy that the public has heard coming from economic officials in the White House was that things aren’t as bad as they could be. That is not a glowing assessment and does little to build confidence.

Now, as presented by the C.B.O., more dire news is released.

All of this is helping to cause Americans to distrust the President. After almost eight months in office, a sizeable portion of Americans have become more doubtful about the President than assured by him.

This lack of confidence, this lack of belief in him, makes it all the more difficult for him to gain support for another expensive, deficit exploding, questionably effective, spending plan that would create government run healthcare in America.

Couple this with an obvious lack of bipartisanship on the part of the President and as indicated by those in attendance at John McCain’s town hall, a lack of confidence in him has begun to fester and turn into a perceived lack of sincerity.

That is a dangerous sentiment for people to have of their leader and left unchecked things will only get worse. If this sense sets in, the Democrat ship will sink fast and not only will its captain, the President, go down with the ship, so will many of the Democrat hands on deck.

Right now, in the only two races for governor up this year, Republicans have wide leads over their Democrat opponents. In Nevada Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid lags behind his likely Republican opponent by double digits. None of this is an indication of people believing in change that they were asked to believe in.

I believe that the time has come for President Obama to change gears. I think he must begin to work with his opponents instead of chastising them and calling them “mobs” or placing them on watch lists and asking Americans to report those who offer dissenting opinions to the government.

On healthcare, I have repeatedly pointed out that the only way to achieve any reforms will be through a sincere bipartisan effort. I have pointed out that the lack of bipartisan commitment was the downfall of other attempts at reform dating as far back as the 1930’s under FRDR and as recently as the early 90’s under Bill Clinton. Why President Obama, a supposedly brilliant and skilled leader, has chosen to take the same partisan approach that has consistently failed throughout history is beyond me. Yet just a week ago reports confirmed that the White House considered reconciliation, the nuclear, go-it-alone, option that would push health reforms through with only Democrat support.

Thinking like that helps to make people believe that President Obama is insincere. It makes the President look less a leader than a partisan hack.

None of this instills faith in him.

After seeing the Democrats try to ram through such measures as the crap-and-tax bill which would tax the air that we breathe and amount to the greatest transfer of wealth in history and after seeing the President try to demand that healthcare reforms got passed before the August recess Americans have become skeptical. They have been give reason to wonder if insincere motives are leading the ruling regime to get pass bills before people have the chance to read them.

If President Obama does not quickly change gears, I think it is safe to say that the wheels rolling the change he wants us to believe will come unhinged and none of what he hoped to achieve will be realized. Perhaps his all-or-nothing approach to government should be explored again. After all, it is that same approach which President Obama and others criticized former President Bush for. They chastised him for not trying to build consensus in foreign policy. They berated him when in regards to terrorism he told the world “you’re either with us or against us.”

Well that is the same path that President Obama and his liberal cohorts in Congress are taking. Will they continue to prove me right in pointing out that Democrats have become a hypocritical based party? Or will they begin to act responsibility and convince Americans of their sincerity on the issues?

Connecticut and Dodd the Dud Is Yet Another Faultline For Democrats In 2010

   In 2008 Connecticut Democrat Senator Chris Dodd was running for the Democrat’s presidential nomination. Now as 2010 approaches he is running for his political life and more and more it is looking like that race will be as successful as his run for President. As a major player in the regulatory schemes that helped bring the housing and finance markets to their knees and ushered in the economic crisis that confronts us today, the doldrums that Dodd wades into among Connecticut voters is well deserved.

As Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee Chris Dodd, along with his counterpart, Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Banking, Barney “Elmer Fudd” Frank of Massachusetts, led the way for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to enter into an unprecedented level of issuing trillions of dollars in low-risk investments that were only sustainable if real estate prices continued rising.

The problem is that real estate prices ceased to rise and started to fall. By the time this reversal took place, it was too late. The lack of liquidity that stemmed from the defaulting of the excessive overextended volume of sub-prime loans began to tighten up the lending of money throughout the entire banking and finance markets and the worldwide credit crunch and economic crisis that we face was born.

It did not have to happen.

In 2005 Alan Greenspan warned Congress of the urgent need to tighten regulations on the systemic abuse that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were partaking in. Before Congress he testified that “if Fannie and Freddie continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,” he said. “We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.”

The advice and circumstances prompted Republicans in 2006 to sponsor new regulations that would have placed the two housing lenders under strict requirements that would have severely limited their ability to take excessive risks and would have corrected illegitimate recording practices that they were participating in. They would have also averted financial ruin.

Chris Dodd rejected these corrective measures. And while refusing to adopt these regulatory measures, he was simultaneously collecting oodles of dollars from Fannie and Freddie and became the largest recipient of campaign contributions from the very entities that he refused to correct.

Another words, Dodd dodged efforts that would have helped to stem the troubling tide of the economic red ink and financial calamity that we found ourselves awash in during 2008.

You can try to put the blame on someone else. You can try to blame it on Bush and you can accuse me of falsifying the factual record on this issue but you would lying. The truth is that President G.W. Bush and his administration called for tighter regulation of government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for a total of seventeen times.

On top of that, Republicans sponsored legislation aimed specifically at the tighter regulations and more accurate recording practices that the President and Alan Greenspan asked for. The measure, S.190, was sponsored By Republican Chuck Hagle and co-sponsored by Republican Senators Elizabeth Dole, John Sununu and Senator and former Republican nominee for President John McCain. But with Dodd at the helm of the banking committee, Republicans couldn’t even get the Senate to vote on the matter.

In the meantime while Dodd stalled efforts to avert financial ruin and campaigned for President in Iowa, Fannie and Freddie spat out a trillion dollars worth of sub-prime mortgages between 2005 and 2007 and by 2008, money stopped flowing throughout our nation.

The facts have forced some like Democrat Congressman Artur Davis of Alabama to state, “like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong.”

But the reality of the circumstances which force Dodd to shoulder the largest share of blame for the financial catastrophe that we must endure is not the only burden he must bear as he runs for a fifth term in the United States Senate.

After refusing to stem the economic crisis that Dodd and Democrats could have averted, the Connecticut Senator found himself in the key position of shaping the legislative bailout of Countrywide Financial Corp., a company that found itself needing bailout bucks after operating under the regulatory practices that Dodd refused to reform.

But this brought rise to an ugly conflict of interest. It was discovered that in two separate sweetheart deals, Dodd was the recipient of two cut-rate mortgages of nearly $800,000 from Countrywide Financial. The political favoritism that Countrywide afforded to the Chairman of the senate committee that oversees their business practices is seen as, to say the least, shady and Senator Dodd has not been forthcoming with the details of the arrangements. Instead, without remorse he has promised to refinance the Countrywide deals, which would save him at least $70,000 over the life of the mortgages.

Then in February of this year, after bailing out AIG, Dodd slipped an amendment into the stimulus bill that ensured that executives of firms bailed out by the government could still collect already contracted bonuses. When this slight of hand came to light, Dodd denied doing it. An intense barrage of outright public indignation forced a glaring spotlight on Dodd until he finally admitted to being responsible for the amendment but ultimately he claimed that President Obama made him do it.

Now after being the first Democrat to throw his Democrat President under the bus, a slew of recent improprieties and slights of hand and a prior history of questionable real estate and financing schemes extending from as far back as 1986, Dodd must confront a very leery and disgruntled Connecticut electorate.

With a negative rating for him of anywhere from 38% to 42%, voters in the Nutmeg State have Chris Dodd trailing his likely Republican opponent Rob Simmons by 9%.

A closer look at the most recent Quinnipiac poll that reveals this troubling news for Dodd shows that while the incumbent Senator has somewhat solidified his base Democrat vote with 74% of them willing to again vote for him, his support among the state’s Independent voters continues to slide and Simmons has leaped out to a 29% lead over Dodd among them. With 87% of all Connecticut Republicans declaring confidence in their likely nominee and an overwhelming preponderance of Independent voters also inclined to support him, the numbers seem to add up to an end to Dodd’s almost three decades in the Senate and his lifetime of financial scheming.

As a former Congressman Rob Simmons has a record that could, at best, be considered moderate. It certainly isn’t one that could be construed as that of a cutting edge conservative.

For those of my school of thought, that would not exactly make Rob Simmons my first choice for a senate seat but we are talking about Connecticut. This is a state that, on occassion, considers Joe Lieberman too conservative for their liking so perhaps Simmons is the closest to being a voice of sanity that we can expect out if this region of New England.

But the story here is less the fact that Simmons seems to be in a position to give Dodd a run for his money than it is the fact that Dodd has become a total dud.

In a previous post I pointed out the many instances where conservatives are mounting challenges to the Republican establishment and to the wing of moderates who have compromised away too many of the principles that make us Republicans. I also pointed out that in addition to this emergence of more traditional Republicans some successes of the G.O.P. in 2010 will be brought about by the mere ineptness of many of the Democrats that they will be challenging. The Simmons-Dodd race is just another such example of the latter as Chris Dodd proves himself to be one of the most inept Democrats of all.

So as 2010 approaches, look for Connecticut to provide one of the tremors that will lead to a political earthquake that shifts the tectonic plates of ideological influence and shapes a new landscape on Capitol Hill in the not too distant future.

A New Approach To The Healthcare Dilemma & A Warning From Ronald Reagan About Socialized Medicine

 

 

On April 4^th , of 1960, Time Magazine ran a story that began as follows:

“Shaping up as one of 1960’s most incendiary political issues is the problem of providing adequate medical care for those who need it most and can afford it least: the 15 million U.S. citizens 65 and over. A variety of bills calling for federal medical subsidies to the aged is before both the Senate and House. By far the most popular and controversial of all has been introduced by Rhode Island’s Democratic Representative Aime Forand, 64. Last week the Forand bill was drawing more mail than any other bill of any kind before Congress.”

Fast forward almost 50 years, boost the numbers and change the names and the same opening paragraph can be written of the new universal healthcare legislation that was recently hammered out by the most liberal legislative leaders Congress has ever housed.

Under the orders of the President of the United States, Congress must hurry up and pass a universal healthcare package. Yet this is not an issue easily solved.

After winning reelection in 1938, President Franklin Roosevelt sent Congress a national health-care program of his own.

It failed.

On November 19^th of 1945 President Harry Truman declared that he would protect Americans from the “economic fears” of illness and gave Congress a national healthcare bill of his own that increased federal aid for healthcare, health education and research for the medical profession; and it was to make health insurance and disability insurance compulsory.

Truman’s initiative had a mixed reception in the Democrat controlled Congress of the time and on the Republican side people like Senator Robert Taft of Ohio declared that Truman‘s proposal was “the most socialistic measure” that “this Congress has ever had before it”.

Truman’s national healthcare initiative failed.

Sixty four years later and here we are again but now what Truman called national healthcare is called universal healthcare and President Obama wants Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to rush a meaningful plan together before Congress takes their traditional summer recess.

This debate has gone on for over seven decades but Obama, Pelosi and Reid are going to hammer out the elusive solution together in the first seven months of the new President’s administration.

Why is he rushing?

Could it be that President Obama wants to ram some half-assed legislation through immediately because he fears that the newness of his tenure in office which affords him the good will and popularity may not be there a year and a half from now when mid-term elections take place and the effects of his leadership set in?

Is such a partisan rush responsible or rational? Is it sensible?

I am not suggesting that important issues get sat upon while Americans see health costs rise and feel increasingly insecure about the future of their current healthcare coverage. What I am suggesting is a careful, thoughtful, comprehensive and different approach be taken. I am offering an approach different from those which other Democrats in President Obama’s position have taken and failed at.

Perhaps a bipartisan approach can be attempted. And maybe, just maybe President Obama could try and initiate a plan that does not involve a government takeover and government run solution that overrules the founding principles of our democracy. We have had enough of that from him already.

A start would be understanding that one solution for all is not appropriate and that the federal government could and should allow states the regulatory and legislative flexibility that would enable and inspire them into action.

The Democrat leadership in Congress, under the direction of President Obama, needs to understand that the many regions and populations in America are so varied that their differing conditions warrant different approaches to the different needs of our divergent society. Another words, a federalist approach to healthcare will not work. Democrats may seek to insure healthcare for all but a one for all national policy will not suit the needs of all.

That is just one reason why the differing states should have the flexibility to formulate different systems, systems that best suit the needs of each state’s population.

Yet while there should not be another failed national attempt to make one policy fit all, one direct line does exist which can allow, as Dr. Henry J. Aaron of the Brookings institute puts it, federalism to “spur bipartisan action on the uninsured“.

Bipartisanship is the key to any enduring solution to reduce the number of American citizens lacking healthcare. Bipartisanship is the one component that every Democrat proposed, national healthcare, initiative from Roosevelt in 1938 to Hillary Clinton in 1994 lacked. Without bipartisanship only one approach is looked at and the pool of ideas is limited to one school of thought.

That limited scope of thinking will inevitably leave many stones unturned and lead to many failures as such a single minded policy is imposed on all the states’ people.

Arranging allowances and guidelines for state experimentation is the first area where bipartisanship can allow for a federalist approach on healthcare.

With federal legislative guidelines and financial support, state experimentation would produce a myriad of various solutions and in time the best solutions for each state will evolve into better and stronger healthcare availability options fore all states.

Dr. Stuart Butler, a devoted and learned expert on the issue contends that “ Congress could enact a policy toolbox of federal initiatives that states could include and federal funding to the states would be linked to success in reaching the goals.”

Another issue that collectively, all the parties that make up Congress can work together on when it comes to national action on healthcare, is portability.

Millions of Americans cannot keep their coverage when they change jobs and often they can not continue with the same coverage they have throughout their lives as changes in their lives occur. Federal action that would allow for the portability of health insurance would solve this problem and help to stabilize insurance markets, reduce costs and ultimately reduce the fluctuating number of uninsured in America.

Comprehensive immigration reform measures that secure our borders are yet another bipartisan effort that could inspire a federalist approach that will significantly help to lower healthcare costs.

If Democrats can understand that we are a sovereign nation with borders that mean something and realize that Republicans are not an anti-immigration party, maybe cooler heads could prevail and a secure border can be achieved.

As an “Open Arms-Secure Borders” Republican, I know that most in the G.O.P. understand the national and moral value of immigration and that we welcome immigrants. The difference is that unlike liberals we do not condone and promote illegal immigration. We do not wish to promulgate an underground society and culture of illegal immigrants who hide from the light of day and the law. If the left could grasp these facts perhaps they could embark on a bipartisan effort to secure our borders.

With secure borders the flow of the millions of illegal immigrants who overtax our already overburdened emergency healthcare services will be sharply reduced. Currently millions of undocumented, untraceable illegal immigrants find themselves in need of emergency health care and in the end, the costs for their medical attention is tacked on to the bill of every medical procedure that every American citizen undergoes.

These are but a few options to the one size fits all, socialist approach to healthcare that Democrats in the past and present have tried and are trying to inflict upon society.

Each time Democrats have attempted to take the lead on the issue of healthcare, they have refused to work along bipartisan lines. Roosevelt presented his own partisan plan, and so did other Democrats like Aime Forand and Hillary Clinton. History shows that these same partisan, socialist approaches have always failed. Now President Obama has asked Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to follow the same path that all of histories other failed federal healthcare initiatives took.

Pelosi and Reid are not discussing healthcare with their Republican counterparts. They are simply crafting a proposal together that will suit the desires of their major backers such as the N.E.A., C.W.A., AFL-CIO and UAW.

Left to their own partisan tendencies these liberal leaders are allowing an alphabet soup of special interests influence a national policy for all Americans. Facts are not the soul determining factor in their partisan proposal and neither is the Constitution of the United States. The one sided healthcare bill being thrown about in Congress today totally ignores the founding principles of our once and hopefully still great nation.

The current conduct and intentions of the liberal controlled federal government simply proves that history repeats itself.

So much so that the dated words of Time Magazine from 1960 can be applied to the contemporary plans of liberals in 2009. So much so that even the urgent warning about socialized medicine that Ronald Reagan gave 20 years before he became President still applies to approach to healthcare that Democrats are taking today.

Below is a video that I prepared which contains that warning. Look at it and listen to it.

Allow yourself to grasp the truth of his words and allow yourself to see how, in so many cases, America has already ignored Ronald Reagan’s warning. So much so, that I dare suggest that the degrees to which our nation has already adopted socialism would have The Gipper leading a second American revolution…..a revolution of restoration to life that Reagan warned we might someday be telling future generations all about as we describe how America once was when men where free.

 

THE VICE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE AND THE SARATIZATION OF STALE POLITICS

In 1968 the campaign of Hubert Humphrey was the first presidential election to use a television ad attacking the oppositions vice presidential nominee. It was used to make fun of Richard of Nixon’s selection of then Maryland Governor Spiro Agnew.

That election was won by Richard Nixon with 301 electoral votes to 191 electoral votes. Third party candidate, Governor George Wallace won 5 southern states and 46 electoral votes.

The ad on Agnew had little effect.

Today we face a much different electoral map, yet one thing that is not different is the use of Sarah Palin by the opposition in this election. Many private groups have taken it upon themselves to run ads, on behalf of Barack Obama, that focus on Palin.

Governor Palin will Saratize the stale political atmosphere

The great attention on Palin came within days of the boost that her addition to the ticket brought to John McCain’s candidacy. A sort of fear overcame the liberal extremists within the Obama camp and outside of it. They were caught off guard by the selection. They were offended by the presentation of a strong, accomplished woman that was not Hillary Clinton or who married into power.

When she was first announced as McCain’s running mate, the Obamakins stated that her only experience is as a small town mayor. They skipped right over the fact that she is a sitting governor. They immediately wrote off her experience because “some” of it, was rooted in a small town and from their perspective small town America doesn’t matter.

Since than, the left has attacked her family, her education and her religion. They have lied about her decisions and actions and claimed that she banned books that were not even published at the time and that she supported secession from the Union when she simply spoke against secession before groups that did advance that cause.

In other words, the left went nuts. They did not know how to deal with her candidacy and they still don’t.

As the vice presidential debate approaches I am sure that they are still at wits end when it comes to coping with her presence on the stage. They have more lies ready to hit to the stands. They have more distortions that they are ready to perpetuate on the internet and over the airwaves. They have plenty of mud to throw but they have little constructive commentary to replace their mud with.

During the course of the debate, I am confident of one thing, Sarah Palin will be a breath of fresh air in an otherwise stale political environment. I am sure she will provide rational sectors of the electorate, with confidence in her abilities and beyond that she will instill a sense of confidence in her ability to bring about their desire for reform of business as usual, Washington, DC, politics.

You see, Sarah Palin does lack experience. She lacks the experience of Washington, DC and it’s go along to get along mentality. She lacks the experience of putting aside one priority for someone’s political favor. Palin lacks the experience of inaction and double talk. On the other hand she has the experience of standing up to the status quo, eliminating deadweight and defeating obstacles to progress. She has the experience of being able to make government work for the people, not against them.

The left can make all the false charges that they want but the truth of Governor Palin’s record cannot be changed. She has spent her time in public service tackling corruption and standing up to the powers that be, even when they were in her own party. She has developed economic policies that enrichened the pockets of Alaskans, not legislated money out of their pockets.

To the contrary, her debate opponent, Joe Biden, has never once opposed a tax increase, reduced the size of

Biden will use DC doubletalk to poluute the political atmosphere

government or stood up to his party and he is a longtime member of the liberal establishment. He is the type of Washington insider that gets hung up on politics and losses sight of positive progress. Biden is the politician who made the decision to hold a “trial” to determine whether, a decade earlier, Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas had committed the outrages of remarking to Anita Hill that dirt on a can of soda looked like pubic hair. Biden is the man who recently touted that the answer to Iraq’s problem was splitting the sovereign nation up into thirds based upon religious sects.

Just as was the case in the 1968 election, this election will not hinge on the vice presidential candidates or their debate and the left’s attacks on Palin will make even less difference. Most people vote for the President, not the Vice President but what people, especially undecided and independent voters, will walk away with is a sense of which ticket is more suited to change the way Washington works. Change in the sense of reform that will take effect from the top down.

I believe that Sarah Palin will Saratize the stale atmosphere of DC politics and that her common sense talk will prevail over Biden’s DC doubletalk.

And for those of you who want to claim that when it comes to the vice presidency, Sarah Palin does not have enough experience but when it comes to the Presidency, Barack Obama does……..I suggest you take a look at this:

 

 

 

Top 10 Signs Your Presidential Candidate is Under-Qualified

1.- Promises to improve foreign relations with Hawaii.

2.- Runs a series of attack ads against Martin Sheen’s character on “The West Wing”.

3.- His #1 choice to work on his cabinet is “That Bob Vila guy”.

4. – Outstanding record as Governor of Rhode Island nullified by the fact that no one cares.

5. – Got his degree in Political Economics by bribing Sally Struthers with a chocolate donut.

6. – Anybody mentions Washington, he asks, “The state or the DC thingie?”

7. – At the debates, answers every question with a snarled, “You wanna wrestle?”

8. – Vows to put an end to the war in Pokemon and free the Pikachu refugees once and for all 

9. – Says the Pledge of Allegiance as quickly as possible, then shouts, “I win!”

                10. -On the very first question of the debate, he attempts to use a lifeline.

OBAMA and McCAIN NEED TO RESCUE ANY RESCUE PACKAGE

One will be President. Both need to show us why they should be.

Presidents must provide leadership that leads us away from crisis if they see it coming. If they didn’t see it coming, they must get us through it.

The current financial crisis that our nation is being warned of could have been avoided if we acted on some of the preventive measures that would have averted the recent need for a 700 billion dollar rescue package. Not avoiding it is something that I blame President Bush for. Note, I do not blame him for the problem but I do blame him and the administration for not seeing it coming. I blame him for not heading the advice of others who warned us about the mortgage lending practices which have inevitably threatened every other, major, area of the economy. People like John McCain who in 2005 proposed measures to correct our course and avoid the ice field.

Someone was asleep at the wheel on this one. It was akin to being on duty in the watchtower and still not seeing the iceberg that sunk the Titanic.

I will blame the President for allowing the issue to get to this point and requiring an historic, expensive hurried, solution to what should have been avoided, but I will not blame him for creating the problem that he did not acknowledge until it was too late.

Nat'l Homeoners Strategy led to crisis

This was a problem created, in part, by the Clinton era.

Under the Clinton administration mandates were created that forced FannieMae and FreddieMac to extend high risks loans to low income and minority applicants. Clinton‘s National Homeowners Strategy was a financial scheme that promoted insanely low down payments and coerced lenders into giving mortgage loans to first-time buyers with unstable financing and incomes. It was a way to increase homeownership. That is an admirable motive but as usual,the  liberal mentality, forced government to do that which it should not have done. Essentially, the Clinton era initiatives that forced government action on private sector interests led to the need for government to take over FannieMae and FreddieMac. This is not to say that private sector greed and bad business practices did not add to the wrong minded government policy, it did, but what happened here is that government solutions to one problem, created another . Now, ironically, the government which helped to create this problem is having to solve it.

There are many lessons that can be learned from this. Whether you refuse to learn those lessons is up to you but the lessons are there. The left , under Nancy Pelosi, want to point fingers at Republicans and blame the entire problem on their tendencies for deregulation. That could almost be plausible if it was true. Unfortunately for liberals, it is not true. Conservatives are not for no regulation. Conservatives are for less regulations. They are against government regulations such as the Clinton era housing initiatives which forced FannieMae and FreddieMac to enter into high risk loans that should never have had the opportunity to be defaulted on. Republicans are against the type of regulations that prevent reasonable growth of our economy that is based upon sound policy and business practices.

Such was the case in 2005 when John McCain sponsored the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act which was specifically aimed at reeling in the higher than acceptable risk taking of FannieMae and FreddieMac. It was also designed to reign in many of the shady recording practices that both institutions were conducting.

The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 was, as it’s name indicates, a bill of regulatory reform, a bill that would have reformed the regulations which have added to the creation of the current economic crisis. The bill was ignored and denied by Democrats and the Democrat chairmen of the committees responsible for the bill. Congressman Barney frank and senator Chris Dodd did not act on this corrective initiative. Yet today, they join with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in blaming Republicans.

Pelosi’s lack of ability to lead has been clear for many years. During the last two years, as Speaker of the House,her lack of leadership has been profound. It lacked the ability to get her own party in line and pass their own liberal initiatives. That is why this is one of history’s least productive congressional legislative

The most unaccomplished Speaker in history

sessions.

Between President Bush sleeping at the economic wheel and the house Democrat leaders’s lack of ability to accomplish anything, we need a leader to step forward. For me that leadership should come from the next President. It should come from the individual who will be steering our economic ship with whatever the burden of the solution to this crisis is.

Barack Obama and John McCain are incumbent senators. They have a responsibility to live up to in those capacities and they should not use a political campaign as an excuse for avoiding that responsibility.

John McCain was right when last week he suspended normal campaign activity in a stated attempt to deal with the legislative package aimed at rescuing the economy. He was wrong to back away from this original position. In doing so we are back to square one and Nancy Pelosi’s lack of leadership along with that of President Bush and Committee Chairs Dodd and Barney still leaves us crying out for effective leadership.

John McCain is no Nostradamus, but on this issue he has been ahead of the curve and his instincts have been right, at least since 2005 when he proposed measures that would have not allowed things to spiral out of control and bring us to this point. McCain should continue with those instincts and apply them in his capacity as a sitting senator.

Why did he reject the solutions before it baecame a problem?

I understand that neither McCain or Obama sit on the House Financial Services Committee or the Senate Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs Committee, which are the primary committees handling the bailout package. However, their involvement on the issue,along, with their colleagues can interject some much needed initiatives and direction into those committees. To believe that since they are not on the committee, they have nothing to do with it or no ability to influence it is absurd.

If either of these two men have the capacity to lead us that their individual campaigns would have us believe than now is their chance to show it.

Too late now to save the process he helped to sink

Now is the time for them to demonstrate their purported abilities to solve problems and unite people together to properly address our national concerns. If either of these men have the answers to our problems, than now is the time to provide those answers. If the economic dangers we are witnessing are truly a crisis, now is the time to answer their calls to duty.

Get off their high horses and get behind their legislative desks of responsibility. Do not politicize the crisis in stump speeches before adoring supporters in Ohio, Pennsylvania or Colorado.  Go to Washington, D.C. and rally the legislative geniuses of Capital Hill together behind appropriate, legitimate legislation that will address the crisis.

I want McCain and Obama to present their rescue packages. A package of legislative measures that:

A. – Produces an acceptable level of fluidity in the credit markets
B. – Prevent the abusive practice of an overextension of risky loans.
C. – Tightens the recording practices of all federal monetary institutions.
D. – Eliminates the Clinton era National Homeownership Strategy policies
E. – Levees a payback with interest on any and all monies invested in bailout packages
F. – Eliminate golden parachutes for executive officers responsible for insolvency

Obama and McCain may not sit on the committees charged with hammering out such a package but they are

Talk is cheap. Action is essential.

charged with the responsibility to create a package that the proper committees must address. Through their leadership they can create a plan that is good enough to garner support and strong enough to rally behind. If they cannot do this than they have no right to comment on the process and use it to advance their candidacies for President.

I want them to demonstrate through deed, not word, how good their abilities are to resolve problems and deal with crisis.

If either McCain or Obama want to demonstrate that they have the ability to accomplish things as President, now is the chance to show it, not just talk about it. The cry for leadership in this crisis is loud and clear and if Obama and/or McCain refuse to answer those cries, than neither one should be asking for the chance to lead our nation for the next four years to come.

Last Wednesday, when McCain embraced the issue and suspended his campaign, he was on track. It was the right thing to do. Since than he has strayed off this track and now we still do not have a rescue package in place. Now, more than ever he needs to get back on track, suspend his campaign and take the lead on the issue. Develop a plan that can win the day and help propel him to the White House.

A campaign is a great forum for ideas to be expressed but a time of crisis is a great forum for leadership to be practiced. McCain and Obama need to practice it now.

A Guide to U.S. Newspapers 

 

1. The Wall Street Journal is read by the people who run the country.

2. The New York Times is read by people who think they run the country.

3. The Washington Post is read by people who think they should run the country.

4. USA Today is read by people who think they ought to run the country but don’t really understand the Washington Post. They do, however like the smog statistics shown in pie charts.

5. The Los Angeles Times is read by people who wouldn’t mind running the country, if they could spare the time, and if they didn’t have to leave L.A. to do it.

6. The Boston Globe is read by people whose parents used to run the country.

7. The New York Daily News is read by people who aren’t too sure who’s running the country, and don’t really care as long as they can get a seat on the train.

8. The New York Post is read by people who don’t care who’s running the country either, as long as they do something really scandalous, preferably while intoxicated.

9. The San Francisco Chronicle is read by people who aren’t sure there is a country, or that anyone is running it; but whoever it is, they oppose all that they stand for. There are occasional exceptions if the leaders are handicapped minority, feministic atheist dwarfs, who also happen to be illegal aliens from ANY country or galaxy as long as they are democrats.

10. The Miami Herald is read by people who are running another country, but need the baseball scores.